CAT/C/20/D/59/1996
page 5
view of the National High Court, which found them valid, they were obtained by
means of mistreatment and torture, and stemmed directly from the statements to
the police that had been declared void.
4.3
The author indicated that on 2 February 1992, she made a statement to
the investigating magistrate without being able to consult a lawyer, not even
the duty counsel, and that although the official record mentioned the lawyer
designated by her, he was not able to attend until the accused’s statement had
been finalized. The record showed that, responding to the first question put
to her, she “neither said nor confirmed in her statement to the Guardia
Civil”, that she belonged to or had collaborated with ETA. She also related
that while on Guardia Civil premises she was mistreated. In particular, she
said she had been struck with a telephone directory, had a bag put over her
head and electrodes on her body, had been forced to undress and had been
threatened with rape. She also claimed to have been forced to stand for long
periods against a wall with her arms raised and legs apart while being struck
from time to time about the head and genitals, and receiving all manner of
insults.
4.4
The author submitted that the medical examinations she underwent while
detained incommunicado were superficial checks, and that not even her vital
signs were measured. There was no assessment of her nervous state, and she
was not asked about the kind of threats and insults to which she had been
subjected; the conclusion was that she bore no signs of violence. The doctor
put in her report that the detainee reported not having slept, having been
beaten, and having been forced to remain naked. Despite this, she concluded
that the author was in a suitable physical and mental condition to make a
statement. Only on 3 February 1992, in prison, the author said, was any
medical evidence of maltreatment found on her person, when three bruises were
discovered. In this connection, the author refers to a June 1994 report by
the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture illustrating the
superficiality of the reports drawn up by doctors attached to the National
High Court.
4.5
The author stated that there was no impartial and independent inquiry
during the conduct of the preliminary investigation, which was instituted as a
result of what she had told the doctor at the penitentiary centre. The three
specialized medical reports ordered by the court were clearly at odds over the
dating of her bruises by their colour (between four hours and six days), which
was crucial to the outcome of the inquiry. She said that no statements were
taken from those who might have been responsible for the alleged offence.
4.6
The only investigation that was done after the partial retraction of the
stay of proceedings ordered as a result of the remedy filed by the author on
9 September 1994 took the form of a third specialized report by the medical
examiner attached to the Court of Investigation on whether the mistreatment
alleged by the author would have left traces that could be detected by a
doctor on examination, hours or days later. This last medical report, dated
22 November 1994, stated that “the acts of aggression reported should have
left objectively observable injuries in the parts of the body allegedly